Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, IRCON PB Tollway Limited, a government subsidiary, filed its income tax return for AY 2018-19. The AO completed the assessment with a significant addition of Rs. 2,77,55,15,203/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 3 months and 19 days in filing, without an application for condonation, although it also addressed the merits.
Held
The Tribunal noted the AR's submission that the delay was due to the Covid period and Supreme Court orders extending the limitation. With both parties agreeing, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the case afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay without providing an opportunity of hearing, considering the Covid-19 period. Whether the various additions and disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were legally justified.
Sections Cited
249(2), 143(1), 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US
ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :
The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 14.9.2023, relating to assessment year 2018- 19 on the following grounds:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. La. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of assessee on the ground of delay in filing the appeal u/s 249(2) (wrongly mentioned 249(4)) and that too without providing the opportunity of hearing in this regard which is in violation of principles of natural justice.
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O in making addition of Rs.277,50.99.630/- on the basis of alleged Tax Audit Report which was revised and has further erred in not considering/appreciating the revised Tax Audit Report and that too without observing the principles of natural justice and without appreciating/considering the submissions of the assessee company.
3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making addition of Rs.277,50,99,630/- - on the basis of alleged Tax Audit Report. is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the revised Tax Audit Report filed by the assessee company while passing the impugned order which is in violation of principles of natural justice.
5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O in making addition of Rs.4.15.576/- being the amount of as per ICDS, led to double addition as the same has already been added in the computation of income.
6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CHA) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.0 in making disallowance of Rs.3,36.475/- being personal expenditure in CSR.
7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the above aggregate adjustment/addition/disallowance of Rs.277.55.15.206/- as the same cannot be made in the intimation u/s 143(1) passed by CPC as the jurisdiction was not validly assumed as per law.
8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the above adjustment/addition/disallowance made u/s 143(1) which could not have been made in law.
9. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A. 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.
That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is wholly owned subsidiary of a Government company namely Ircon international Ltd. Assessee filed its income tax return declaring taxable income at Rs. 1,04,21,820/- after adjusting carry forward loss of Rs. 25,87,849/- and AO completed the assessment at Rs. 2,78,59,37,020/- by making addition of Rs. 2,77,55,15,203/- in the declared income for Rs. 1,04,21,820/-. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse by noting that there is a delay of 3 months and 19 days and no application for condonation of delay has been filed. Ld. CIT(A) also touched with the merits of the case.